I'd like to respond to a couple of your points.
With respect to the question of whether this will just impact on small or large projects, from our point of view—Keith had run the data and we presented this the last time—about 20% of our MRIF, our Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund, our smaller community projects, are affected by this, but about 25% of what were the big strategic projects are affected.
If we're doing a big waste water treatment plant and the effluent pipes are discharging and they're a certain diameter—or not—then we are affected by the navigable waters legislation. Just to press this point to one further aspect, though, if there are deleterious substances going into receiving streams, under the Fisheries Act we'd still be checking that.
With respect to your question about canoeists and whitewater enthusiasts, because Transport Canada was administering the act, they have led any consultations that have occurred. We haven't been in direct contact with them from that standpoint.
I was struck by something that I almost find in common among Madam Tully and Mr. Middleton and the FCM, and that is looking for some kind of operational definition of a major waterway, a navigable waterway, and a minor waterway. The point of adding clarity to that on an operational basis is that, from the standpoint of our clients—municipalities, provincial promoters, the private sector—having that information would be extremely valuable.
If I might go one further step, when applications come in to us, if there were some sort of mapping, as Mr. Middleton described with the Albertan experience, that would be very helpful.